Quick Reply

I have a guardian angel. An arch angel infact is her class. I'm learning quite a bit from her. Being there all my life she's protected me from the worst happening to me. When I asked why I dealt a crappy deal in life, her answer was this.

"God didn't give you the short end of the stick... He gave you me. Never forget that."

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:29 am

Uh huh....

Not Streetlight Fights

Offline

Sybil Unrest

Offline

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:29 pm

Interesting, considering that angels are male, biblically.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:41 pm

No, angels are genderless. They have no genitalia biblically.

And aren't Archangels supposed to interact only with the most important of human beings, like Mary and Mohammed? Either your angel is lying to you, or you're the next Jesus.

divineseraph

Offline

Sybil Unrest

Offline

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:51 pm

No angel is ever described as female, biblically. They are always described as male.

Gender is more than your genitals. Or do you describe Yahweh as an it? Besides which, angels are described as having genitals, with which they had sex with human women. Not to mention I seem to recall being told of a biblical euphemism for genitals, described as being hidden by wings, but I cannot give direct quotes, for I cannot be bothered.

Jewish Encyclopedia Wrote:

Angels appear to man in the shape of human beings of extraordinary beauty, and are not at once recognized as angels (Gen. xviii. 2, xix. 5; Judges, vi. 17, xiii. 6; II Sam. xxix. 9); they fly through the air; they become invisible; sacrifices touched by them are consumed by fire; they disappear in sacrificial fire, like Elijah, who rode to heaven in a fiery chariot; and they appear in the flames of the thornbush (Gen. xvi. 13; Judges, vi. 21, 22; II Kings, ii. 11; Ex. iii. 2). They are pure and bright as heaven; consequently they are formed of fire and are encompassed by light (Job, xv. 15), as the Psalmist says (Ps. civ. 4, R. V.): "Who maketh winds his messengers; his ministers a flaming fire." Although they have intercourse with the daughters of men (Gen. vi.), and eat heavenly bread (Ps. lxxviii. 25), they are immaterial, not being subject to the limitations of time and space.

Oh, for interest the reason some Christians believe in guardian angels is from a couple of passages in the NT and OT, and church teaching. It is not a clear-cut issue however.

Catholic Encyclopaedia Wrote:

But in the New Testament the doctrine is stated with greater precision. Angels are everywhere the intermediaries between God and man; and Christ set a seal upon the Old Testament teaching: "See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 18:10). A twofold aspect of the doctrine is here put before us: even little children have guardian angels, and these same angels lose not the vision of God by the fact that they have a mission to fulfil on earth.

Without dwelling on the various passages in the New Testament where the doctrine of guardian angels is suggested, it may suffice to mention the angel who succoured Christ in the garden, and the angel who delivered St. Peter from prison. Hebrews 1:14 puts the doctrine in its clearest light: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who shall receive the inheritance of salvation?" This is the function of the guardian angels; they are to lead us, if we wish it, to the Kingdom of Heaven.

St. Thomas teaches us (Summa Theologica I:113:4) that only the lowest orders of angels are sent to men, and consequently that they alone are our guardians, though Scotus and Durandus would rather say that any of the members of the angelic host may be sent to execute the Divine commands. Not only the baptized, but every soul that cometh into the world receives a guardian spirit; St. Basil, however (Homily on Psalm 43), and possibly St. Chrysostom (Homily 3 on Colossians) would hold that only Christians were so privileged. Our guardian angels can act upon our senses (I:111:4) and upon our imaginations (I:111:3) -- not, however, upon our wills, except "per modum suadentis", viz. by working on our intellect, and thus upon our will, through the senses and the imagination. (I:106:2; and I:111:2). Finally, they are not separated from us after death, but remain with us in heaven, not, however, to help us attain salvation, but "ad aliquam illustrationem" (I:108:7, ad 3am).

However archangels do seem, biblically, to be reserved for important people - though not just messiahs!

Most people either believe everyone gets a guardian angel, in which case the OP is nothing special, or no one gets one, only special people get the attentions of angels for a specific reason/time.

Sybil Unrest

Offline

divineseraph

Offline

Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:11 pm

Sybil Unrest Wrote:

No angel is ever described as female, biblically. They are always described as male.

Gender is more than your genitals. Or do you describe Yahweh as an it? Besides which, angels are described as having genitals, with which they had sex with human women. Not to mention I seem to recall being told of a biblical euphemism for genitals, described as being hidden by wings, but I cannot give direct quotes, for I cannot be bothered.

Jewish Encyclopedia Wrote:

Angels appear to man in the shape of human beings of extraordinary beauty, and are not at once recognized as angels (Gen. xviii. 2, xix. 5; Judges, vi. 17, xiii. 6; II Sam. xxix. 9); they fly through the air; they become invisible; sacrifices touched by them are consumed by fire; they disappear in sacrificial fire, like Elijah, who rode to heaven in a fiery chariot; and they appear in the flames of the thornbush (Gen. xvi. 13; Judges, vi. 21, 22; II Kings, ii. 11; Ex. iii. 2). They are pure and bright as heaven; consequently they are formed of fire and are encompassed by light (Job, xv. 15), as the Psalmist says (Ps. civ. 4, R. V.): "Who maketh winds his messengers; his ministers a flaming fire." Although they have intercourse with the daughters of men (Gen. vi.), and eat heavenly bread (Ps. lxxviii. 25), they are immaterial, not being subject to the limitations of time and space.

Well, it seems that things in those times without genders were described as male, especially if they held divine power. It's like boats being referred to as female- They don't have genitals, they obviously have no gender, but people will call it "her". And as for mating, this is a good point, but it doesn't necessarily mean that angels MUST have genitals to impregnate humans- God managed, and I don't think he bent Mary over the coffee table to do it.

Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:51 pm

Ah, but God is described as a spirit...and the impregnation bit was done by the holy ghost if I am remembering correctly.

I would put it down to the sexism of biblical times, myself. Demons could be female, and women were not esteemed especially highly - so following the advice of a woman would not be seen as as good as following the advice of a male angel. After all, it is woman who was deceived, and is the weaker vessel, and may not speak in church, so why would the representatives and messengers of Yahweh be female?

Sybil Unrest

Offline

divineseraph

Offline

Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:48 am

Actually, women of the day were usually the pastors, at least in Christianity. They held the "church" meetings which were actually more like communal meals with discussion. Unfortunately, we threw this away to cover everything in gold and chant mindlessly to statues.

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:36 am

Sybil Unrest Wrote:

Ah, but God is described as a spirit...and the impregnation bit was done by the holy ghost if I am remembering correctly.

I would put it down to the sexism of biblical times, myself. Demons could be female, and women were not esteemed especially highly - so following the advice of a woman would not be seen as as good as following the advice of a male angel. After all, it is woman who was deceived, and is the weaker vessel, and may not speak in church, so why would the representatives and messengers of Yahweh be female?

God is genderless as well. They are described as male because calling something a he instead of it sounds better grammatically. Also back in biblical times, humans had no understanding of genders as we do now. So that is why angels appeared as male or androgynous males. The latter is more than likely possible.

Neferet -House of Night-

Offline

Crimson Raccoon

Offline

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:00 pm

It's too bad Kupo-Sama hasn't come in again on this discussion. Or at least explained what his purpose of posting this was...

Angels are around us all the time, going back and forth between heaven and earth, carrying out the will of God. I'm not sure if they have genitals, it's kind of a silly thing to wonder. The Bible doesn't say specifically either way. It's true that it always describes them as male, whenever it specifies a gender. As for demons, Sybil Unrest said that demons could be female, but I don't know of any demon being described as female in the Bible. Demons are, after all, the same type of creature as the angels are. They're fallen angels who sided with Satan in the rebellion, and God cast them out of heaven. The Bible does mention some false goddesses of other nations around the Israelites, but just because a goddess is mentioned, that doesn't mean it's the name of any demon; it's just some female deity another nation believed in.

For God, he is most definitely a male being. The word "he" and other masculine pronouns are used to reference him, but it is not just a matter of "he" being nicer than "it" nor because the culture considered genderless persons to be "he's." Even if the Jewish culture was this way, the masculine terms continued to be used by Christ and his disciples. Christ was far from being sexist; women had a special place in his ministry and his relationships on earth; yet he always used masculine terms to describe both the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of course himself. Jesus dramatically changed the Jewish way of thinking and challenged a lot of their superior attitudes, including the attitude that women were somehow inferior. But he did not challenge the idea that God was male; surely he would have if that was not the case.

Not only is God portrayed throughout the whole Bible as a father, but the relationship he has with his church is described in detail as a relationship between a husband and his wife, him being the husband.

So, it's not just an issue of masculine pronouns. The roles and relationships God has are all described as masculine in the Bible; it's a part of his character.

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:57 am

Crimson Raccoon Wrote:

It's too bad Kupo-Sama hasn't come in again on this discussion. Or at least explained what his purpose of posting this was...

Angels are around us all the time, going back and forth between heaven and earth, carrying out the will of God. I'm not sure if they have genitals, it's kind of a silly thing to wonder. The Bible doesn't say specifically either way. It's true that it always describes them as male, whenever it specifies a gender. As for demons, Sybil Unrest said that demons could be female, but I don't know of any demon being described as female in the Bible. Demons are, after all, the same type of creature as the angels are. They're fallen angels who sided with Satan in the rebellion, and God cast them out of heaven. The Bible does mention some false goddesses of other nations around the Israelites, but just because a goddess is mentioned, that doesn't mean it's the name of any demon; it's just some female deity another nation believed in.

For God, he is most definitely a male being. The word "he" and other masculine pronouns are used to reference him, but it is not just a matter of "he" being nicer than "it" nor because the culture considered genderless persons to be "he's." Even if the Jewish culture was this way, the masculine terms continued to be used by Christ and his disciples. Christ was far from being sexist; women had a special place in his ministry and his relationships on earth; yet he always used masculine terms to describe both the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of course himself. Jesus dramatically changed the Jewish way of thinking and challenged a lot of their superior attitudes, including the attitude that women were somehow inferior. But he did not challenge the idea that God was male; surely he would have if that was not the case.

Not only is God portrayed throughout the whole Bible as a father, but the relationship he has with his church is described in detail as a relationship between a husband and his wife, him being the husband.

So, it's not just an issue of masculine pronouns. The roles and relationships God has are all described as masculine in the Bible; it's a part of his character.

So then who is the Mother?

As we know, a father alone is impotent to create life and would only spread pointless seeds. So thus, God must be a woman to be the Mother, as She gave birth to all existence.

Of course, this is just playing devil's advocate, I know that God is genderless. If you are basing your belief in God being male on fatherly aspects, this gives rise to entire logical faults such as creation of life.

The Jews knew of God as both genders, hence the Sephirah having equal numbers of both male and female aspects.

divineseraph

Offline

Crimson Raccoon

Offline

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:03 pm

divineseraph Wrote:

So then who is the Mother?

As we know, a father alone is impotent to create life and would only spread pointless seeds. So thus, God must be a woman to be the Mother, as She gave birth to all existence.

Of course, this is just playing devil's advocate, I know that God is genderless. If you are basing your belief in God being male on fatherly aspects, this gives rise to entire logical faults such as creation of life.

The Jews knew of God as both genders, hence the Sephirah having equal numbers of both male and female aspects.

God didn't give birth to anything in that sense, he created it. God has power, he can do that. There is no logical reason why both a male and a female power need to be used to create anything... only to reproduce life, and even then it's only in certain forms of life.

The view that God must also be female since he created anything, puts God into the box of human limitation. I can't create life without a female, but what does that have to do with God? And even with humans giving birth, that's not a real "creation." It's just taking energies and matter that already exist, and through biological processes a new creature is developed. Not at all the same thing as God creating the heavens and the earth out of nothing.

If the Jews knew of God as both genders, why is there not a single reference to him in the entire Jewish Bible as being female? The Sephirah is far from being accepted by all Jews or even a majority, and it was developed much later then the times that the Jewish sacred texts were already written. I'm not sure the exactly when, but it's safe to say it was hundreds of years. It certainly failed to make its way into their Bible, at any rate.

People have freedom to believe anything they want about God, but the Bible says in no uncertain terms that he is male. The Bible also claims to be the Word of God himself, not only divinely inspired but also containing numerous direct quotes from God referring to himself as male. And Jesus Christ confirmed not only that these books were truly the Word of God, but also explicitly confirmed that God was indeed male.

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:09 pm

Crimson Raccoon Wrote:

divineseraph Wrote:

So then who is the Mother?

As we know, a father alone is impotent to create life and would only spread pointless seeds. So thus, God must be a woman to be the Mother, as She gave birth to all existence.

Of course, this is just playing devil's advocate, I know that God is genderless. If you are basing your belief in God being male on fatherly aspects, this gives rise to entire logical faults such as creation of life.

The Jews knew of God as both genders, hence the Sephirah having equal numbers of both male and female aspects.

God didn't give birth to anything in that sense, he created it. God has power, he can do that. There is no logical reason why both a male and a female power need to be used to create anything... only to reproduce life, and even then it's only in certain forms of life.

The view that God must also be female since he created anything, puts God into the box of human limitation. I can't create life without a female, but what does that have to do with God? And even with humans giving birth, that's not a real "creation." It's just taking energies and matter that already exist, and through biological processes a new creature is developed. Not at all the same thing as God creating the heavens and the earth out of nothing.

If the Jews knew of God as both genders, why is there not a single reference to him in the entire Jewish Bible as being female? The Sephirah is far from being accepted by all Jews or even a majority, and it was developed much later then the times that the Jewish sacred texts were already written. I'm not sure the exactly when, but it's safe to say it was hundreds of years. It certainly failed to make its way into their Bible, at any rate.

People have freedom to believe anything they want about God, but the Bible says in no uncertain terms that he is male. The Bible also claims to be the Word of God himself, not only divinely inspired but also containing numerous direct quotes from God referring to himself as male. And Jesus Christ confirmed not only that these books were truly the Word of God, but also explicitly confirmed that God was indeed male.

Again, if it didn't have a gender, it was often a He or granted an arbitrary gender. The Sephirah and basic logic point to God being both/neither genders. Creating is not like giving birth? And women cannot craft things? God is infinite in nature. If I am putting God in a box by calling Him genderless and thus infinite, isn't calling him male even worse?

divineseraph

Offline

Crimson Raccoon

Offline

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:47 pm

divineseraph Wrote:

Again, if it didn't have a gender, it was often a He or granted an arbitrary gender.

If you can provide evidence of anything genderless in ancient Jewish culture that's consistently referred to as a male, a father, etc., particularly things which are living or have a personality or can speak, then sincerely I will be interested in hearing that.

divineseraph Wrote:

The Sephirah and basic logic point to God being both/neither genders.

I still don't see how logic points at all to God needing to be both or neither gender just because he created anything; it seems to be an arbitrary requirement, based on nothing but looking at biological reproduction, as if that were the measure of all things. Besides, logic is limited. There's plenty of things in this world that logic is insufficient to tell us about. It can tell us some things about God, but it's not enough to tell us everything; he needs to reveal himself in some way. Take yourself for an example: I could logically come to some conclusions about you, but using only logic I would fall far short of knowing you in any personal way. You need to, in one way or another, reveal something of yourself to me. Since God has revealed himself as a male; how can we question that? We can't somehow know him better than he knows himself.

What the Sephirah points to has little bearing on this discussion. The Sephirah is a description of God that a particular group of people in an offshoot movement of Judaism, known as Kabbalah, started believing in at an unknown point in history. It doesn't carry any weight in a Christian guild. Someone could use teachings of the Hindu sacred texts as evidence that there are multiple gods and reincarnation. That's fine for Hinduism, but being in a Christian guild, we're discussing the God of Christianity.

Your religion appears to be a Kabbalistic Jewish mysticism, I'm only assuming, since you hold the Sephirah as authoritative instead of the Bible. I'll agree with you that in Kabbalistic Judaism, God is genderless; that's fine. You should agree that in Christianity (and mainstream, traditional, historic Judaism), God is male.

divineseraph Wrote:

Creating is not like giving birth? And women cannot craft things?

Who said anything about women not being able to craft things?? lol. Sure, women can craft things, and they don't need men to do it. There's lots of things either sex can do without the other; the only thing that needs both sexes is sexual reproduction. Which is not the same as creating. Creating is like giving birth in a metaphoric way, but obviously it has no more relation to making babies then it has with me painting a picture.

Also, remember that according to the Bible, woman was taken from a part of man. From that point on, man was incomplete without woman, but before that, he was complete in himself. God is, of course, complete in himself. He does have characteristics that may be considered feminine by our less-than-perfect culture today. He's male though, he says so; other religions can disagree, but that's other religions. I guess someone could make a thread about which religion is right, if someone really wanted to go down that road.

divineseraph Wrote:

God is infinite in nature. If I am putting God in a box by calling Him genderless and thus infinite, isn't calling him male even worse?

Often in our discussions I've heard you refer to God as infinite. Though I've said that I don't know what you mean by it, you haven't specified, so forgive me if my interpretation of it is wrong. Usually I've thought you meant he was eternal, but here it sounds like you're saying God is without limitation. If that's the case, it isn't entirely true. There's lots of things God can't do; he can't lie, for example. God has a personality, and as such there are certain things that describe him and certain things that do not. He's not within the limits of human power, we shouldn't put him there. But he does have his own limits in the sense that he can't do anything against his own character. Basically, he can't contradict himself in any way, I mean to say.